T
Techno2000
Guest
It doesn’t work like this…???
- Status
K
Kei
Guest
it’s being (probably purposefully) vague on what exactly has been revealed, merely that study of some kind has enriched our understanding. Can it mean research that assumes evolution? Perhaps, but even so, research done in such a manner can still review many things.
T
Techno2000
Guest
More vagueness…What mutation to outlive the creature from which it came ? What were these creature ?What kind of drastic ecological changes ?Rhubarb:
This isn’t strictly true, is it? It isn’t necessary for a mutation to outlive the creature from which it came, but merely that it a) survive and b) procreate in a way to pass on the mutation. If there was a drastic ecological change like land to sea I don’t see why there’d be any problem considering the resources would be completely different.
G
Glark
Guest
This is a very suspect teaching! By declaring that the Genesis account of Adam being created from dust “does not IN FACT explain how humans came to be”, the Pope seems to be definitively declaring that humans “came to be” via a different method - in other words, God IN FACT did not literally create Adam instantly from the dust of the earth and breath life into his nostrils.
When did the Church declare that the literal interpretation of Adam’s creation from dust is false and “does not IN FACT explain how humans came to be”
This is classical evolutionist propaganda … expressed by a very brainwashed Pope. Genetic similarities can be explained by the same Creator using the same molecular building-blocks of life.
This doozie has to go on to the short-list of the most naive and clueless statements ever uttered by a Pope. Apparently, it never occurred to JP II that the atheist-ridden scientific community (including the Church’s own atheist-ridden Pontifical Academy of Science) might be seriously biased towards a theory that says life on earth evolved from microbes! And this Pope was apparently unaware that theories of life evolving from simpler life-forms have been in existence for at least 2500 years, and therefore such a theory may not necessarily be the product of modern science.
How could any Pope not be suspicious of the “scientific” opinions of a bunch of God-phobes, who are hell-bent on denying any evidence of creation and design in nature ; and are stupid enough to believe that life can arise naturally from inanimate matter?
Was JP II of the opinion that this God-denying, reality-denying, irrational, so-called science was likewise “neither sought nor fabricated”?
But considering JP II is the (post-Vat II) Church’s Patron Saint of Freemasonry, his comment-cum-propaganda is hardly surprising.
Last edited:
A
anon65111186
Guest
So where is the physical place we can go to see the angel gaurding it. I just want to get some pictures from afar, I promise not to go in.
K
Kei
Guest
You may have missed it; the guy was making a kind of jab and said he thought whales are descended from dogs because they like to swim (as a joke of sorts), Rhubarb then said that wouldn’t be possible because dogs are still alive, or rather implied it, saying that the previous species dies.
My point was that it isn’t necessarily true that the previous species would die. Say the modern dog was a species that existed millions of years ago, enough time for whale evolution to occur. If some event were to occur to change the body of some dogs to be more by the waterside than the others, it is not necessary for the current dog species to die out, so long as dogs remain in stasis; many animals have remained the same throughout the millions of years. Since they would likely be using different resources it is possible so long as the dog whale transitioning species lives long enough to pass on its genes and the mutation is genetically able to be passed on.
Of course this is a silly hypothetical, if you want to look up whale evolution look up cetacen.
My point was that it isn’t necessarily true that the previous species would die. Say the modern dog was a species that existed millions of years ago, enough time for whale evolution to occur. If some event were to occur to change the body of some dogs to be more by the waterside than the others, it is not necessary for the current dog species to die out, so long as dogs remain in stasis; many animals have remained the same throughout the millions of years. Since they would likely be using different resources it is possible so long as the dog whale transitioning species lives long enough to pass on its genes and the mutation is genetically able to be passed on.
Of course this is a silly hypothetical, if you want to look up whale evolution look up cetacen.
K
Kei
Guest
Where the Euphrates and Tigris rivers meet, there are two dried up streams. Eden is likely long gone now. (that is if you take it completely literally), also what makes you think you could see the angel guarding Eden? You can’t normally see angels can you?
A
anon65111186
Guest
The Pope is not strong arming you into believing anything, he is simply agreeing with evolution.
Would it be possible for you to admit you may be wrong?
What then if you’re wrong? Do you even have a plan for that?
Let’s say though, tomorrow the Pope came out and said, all Catholics, as a matter of faith and morals, must believe that Adam evolved from another hominid, but God created his soul instantaneously at conception. What would you do Glark? What would you do?
From what you’ve said already I bet you would separate yourself in an instant and not even think twice of submitting to the authority of Christ’s vicar on earth. You would turn heretic quicker than Luther or Zwingli.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
What pagan nonsense. This sounds like esoteric drivel borrowed from that nutter Jesuit, Teilhard de Chardin. There is nothing “very important” about the theory of microbe-man evolution - it’s just a useless story. And since when do we need this worthless theory to “respect the natural world”? We respect the natural world because it’s our home and God’s awesome and beautiful creation, not because we believe bacteria turned into jelly- fish!
Yeah, right, great … now all you have to do is prove that it actually happened and isn’t just part of some dumb, atheist fairy tale.
Really? And what “new findings” might they be? Tadpoles evolve into frogs? Grubs evolve into butterflies?
Last edited:
A
anon65111186
Guest
Glark, your stubbornness to hold on to anti-evolutionary thinking in the face of contrary evidence is astounding, how do you do it? It borders on self-deception, but I won’t say that because I don’t know you that well.
Last edited:
M
mVitus
Guest
That actually is in contradiction to faith. Human-bodied they would’ve been, but not human-souled. Pope Pius XII was clear all true humans (both body AND soul, not just body) can trace lineage back to Adam.
Evolution + Faith != conflict
When both are understood correctly
( != means =/= for those not in the know)
Last edited:
K
Kei
Guest
This slander is just untrue. Freemasonry is not allowed for Catholics. It is clearly wrong, and slandering the saintly pontiff like this is just wrong.
G
Glark
Guest
Yes he did - because he was attacking core dogmas of the Church. In contrast, what I’m doing is pointing out demonstrable errors and bias in the Catechism regarding a useless and untestable scientific theory that is as irrelevant to salvation as it gets
A
anon65111186
Guest
Good point, JPII is in heaven, we know that 100% by our faith. The Church canonized him not long ago, because he performed two miracles through the Mercy of Christ, to show us how holy JPII was.
You are not only going against a Pope, but a Great Saint, and I mean Great! That should give more weight to his words. Even if you disagree @Glark, you should at least respect him and not speak untruths about him. It’s uncharitable and possibly sinful.
G
Glark
Guest
Creationism isn’t science, because creation is a miracle performed by God Almighty. Yet you are asking for a scientific use for a miracle performed thousands of years ago? How does your request even begin to make sense?
This is the same as asking, “Okay, Jesus turned water into wine - how is that useful to scientists?”
On the other hand, since it is claimed that microbe-man evolution is a scientific fact (as cliamed in the Catechism, for example), it is reasonable to ask if there is a scientific use for this “knowledge” (as the CCC calls it).
M
mVitus
Guest
I used the example of Martin Luther in hopes it would strike a chord in you and maybe get you to realize what you’re doing- putting your personal authority above The Church. When a person puts their personal interpretation above what The Church with 2,000 years of tradition that gave it to you says, it’s something you should take another look at. I beg you to talk with a priest about your doubts in Christ’s Church that you may understand why the Church says what it says that you may see the error in your condemnation if the Church. Your personal opinion on the matter of how Creation happened is allowable, but your opinion on the Church’s alowance of evolution is incorrect.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Well according to some private revelation I read Eden was in Israel, and the landscape of Eden and Israel was completely changed by the flood.
G
Glark
Guest
It seems to me that you want to separate the Solomon reference from the rest of the paragraph, thereby taking it out of context. But he fact of the matter is, the Solomon reference clearly refers to “These discoveries”, mentioned in the previous sentence. And in turn, “These discoveries” refer to the “scientific studies” mentioned in the sentence previous to that - which include “the origins … of man” and “the development of life-forms and the appearance of man”.
In other words, the Catechism applies the Solomon reference (“unerring knowledge” from God) to the “knowledge” and “discover
” of microbe-man evolution, arrived at by scientists (most of whom are atheists) whom the CCC claims have been blessed with God-given “understanding and wisdom”.(Yep, that right - all these superlatives and accolades for a untestable, unverifiable theory that is dead-useless to science and is seemingly contradicted by Scripture! Bizarro.)
My interpretation of “unerring” in this context (ie, knowledge that comes directly from God) is “infallible”. What’s your interpretation?
A
anon65111186
Guest
So you are not claiming that creationism is a fact? The miracle performed by God Almighty is not a fact? It isn’t testable or able to be subjected to scientific inquiry?
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Same rules apply to evolution as to creationism.
Creationism is the doctrine that the various species of living beings were immediately and directly created or produced by God, and are not therefore the product of an evolutionary process. It is thus opposed to Transformism, which says that no species every evolved or changed since the beginning of time, (no new species theory).
It is indeed a testable hypothesis, as a scientific theory it states that species remained the same and new species never came into being from another.
Good question, can’t be asked for some reason?
G
Glark
Guest
Embellishing a theory about what happened millions of years ago with evermore sub-theories and finding “evidence” to suit doesn’t add up to a practical use. Despite the hype and all the effort, it’s just fruitless talk. Darwinism is a Talkers’ Paradise - it doesn’t produce anything that actually serves mankind or advances science or knowledge. All talk and no action. It’s a dead world (the DSS - Dead Science Society).
Honestly, I worry about the mentality of folks who fall in love with a scientific theory that for all intents and purposes is a corpse.
On the other hand, applied biology is a living world that produces useful results. That’s because it’s built on scientific facts, not imagined stories about where animals came from - and especially not stories that can’t be verified as fact.
- Status